Effectiveness of Mulligan Mobilization Technique and Core Stabilization Exercises in Female Patients With Knee Osteoarthritis: A Randomized Controlled Single-Blind Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of the Mulligan mobilization (MM) technique and Core stabilization (CS) exercises added to the conventional physiotherapy (CP) program in female patients with knee osteoarthritis (KOA). METHODS: The study included 42 female patients diagnosed with bilateral KOA. Participants were randomly divided into 3 groups as CP group (mean age: 57.79 ± 7.43 years), MM group (mean age: 56.14 ± 6.95 years), and CS group (mean age: 54.36 ± 6.56 years). They were divided into 3 groups and treated 3 sessions per week for 4 weeks. Pain intensity, range of motion (ROM), and muscle strength were evaluated with visual analog scale, universal goniometer, and handheld dynamometer, respectively. Balance, aerobic capacity, and functional level were assessed with 30-second sit-to-stand test, 6-minute walk test, and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index. The quality of life of the participants was evaluated with the Nottingham Health Profile. RESULTS: After treatment, significant improvement was achieved in the all parameters evaluated in the groups (P < .05). CS was found to be more effective in reducing resting pain intensity than the other two treatment approaches (P = .001). It was observed that MM technique increased knee flexion ROM more (P = .001). There was no superiority of MM group and CS group over each other in balance, functional level, aerobic capacity, and quality of life assessments (P > .05). CONCLUSION: Our study showed that CP, MM technique, and CS exercises were effective treatment approaches in the management of KOA in female patients. Results revealed that the MM technique was more effective in increasing knee flexion ROM, and the CS exercise was more effective in reducing resting pain intensity in female patients with KOA.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".